Skinpress Demo Rss

Adam Lambert on IG: Live premiere of #NewEyes on the @americanidol finale ! @thepocketqueen @theangieswan @iamsatarra (swipe for all three parts :) **thanks to @tsuth88 for making this performance look fab. #adamlambert

Filed Under () by Adam Lambert on Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Posted at : Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Posted by @Admin Fan for ADAM LAMBERT 24/7 NEWS


Nanbert said...

Oh my! What's left to say?.....he's simply splendid, incomparable, fabulous, magnificent, gorgeous, one-of-a-kind, artistic....a Glameleon in voice and persona....UNEQUALLED....ALL superlatives rolled into one.....HE'S A-D-A-M L-A-M-B-E-R-T!


Rosepetal said...

Well dang Nanbert I got nothing, You pretty much said on all.;)

Nanbert said...

BTW...really good sound in the above video.....but still would have liked better lighting on Adam. Too many "busy" lights everywhere BUT on him.

I noticed that OTT lighting during ALL the performances on American Idol... WAY over the top with very busy lighting action. I felt it was not only distracting from the performers, but often "confused" the eyes as to what they were actually seeing. Definitely should have needed warning for those prone to epileptic seizures brought on by flashing lights, IMO.

Nanbert said...


Rosepetal said...

This is the 8th anniversary of the Joplin tornado that changed our lives forever. So thankful I had Adam’s music and spirt to help me through. He really is a gift form god.

Lam-My said...

I watched this Live...Thank you at; over the moon after that...So sexy, his alto/falsetto at 'I feel so blind...' and 'so good', the 'arrgh' burst at Eyes. This sound is a lot better.

Returns to Idol to shine a light
Through the lens of his New eyes
Diffuses darkness with a love song
A huge hook and a sexy shic shic rhythm
Some skeptics say he's promoting drug use
Why would he do that?
I see it as sophisticated art
Relevant to present time, focuses a dire scenario
Ties in sublimely with his dreamy singing, 70s ethos
Fashion, neck-length wave hair, bell-bottoms
Helloo Pharaoh! Your Daddy kicked butts on Idol Owooooh...


Recognise the blue bedsheet...Pharaoh had front-row seat where the New Eyes video was made.

(Posted by AdminFan)

Sunflower said...

Mr. Hot Stuff!

Lam-My said...

Helloo CNN Fan, how are you doing...haw haw still tracking come across as warm and determined...😊

I just heard you use the word *sophisticated reported by David McKenzie regarding :
'Botswana has lifted a ban on elephant hunting, which has been in place for five years. The southern African country, which has a large population of elephants, says their numbers are now so high that they are coming into conflict with farmers.' 🌿🐘🐘🌳 Sad. They are beautiful.

And mine : *sophisticated in my above poem.

Nanbert said...

Unbelievable! Sounds like a "copyright" infringement to me!

Lam-My said...

Good morning CNN Fan! This is called audience participation...both sides. Great job! I appreciate it! Dook Dook! Chang! Chang! (Cantonese opera)
By the way, I was speaking to someone in the media and told him I have a CNN Fan and he said: That's so cool!

Actually, I've seen words that I often use, on news/media such as 'herculean' used in my poem to describe Joseph Schooling's Olympic Gold 100m Butterfly feat; 'carnage' used at a very high-level inauguration or, lo and behold...So far no one has picked up 'Haw haw' yet...Haw haw! πŸ€’πŸ˜‹

Okay, maybe coincidence...but quite close to after I've used them and the words are rarely used, some archaic, like the above two examples, many more.

LAMBERT Outlaw said...

Here's the two performances on one video tape via Trespasser from Ytube

Adam Lambert - New Eyes & Bohemian Rhapsody with Dimitrius Graham (American Idol)

tess4ADAM(LAMBERT Outlaw)

Nanbert said...

"Archaic" is in the eye of the viewer...English vocabulary varies from country to country. What is "rare" or "archaic" in one country may be common in another. This is evidently true about the difference between American and Singaporean English. CNN speaks American English.

"Haw Haw" IS archaic in the USA --- and mostly used to describe the sound of a donkey (He Haw). Try "Ha Ha" for humans.

"Herculean", "carnage", "sophisticated" (and others claimed earlier) are quite COMMON words in American English...not at all "rarely used" or "archaic". They are undoubtedly spoken many hundreds of times a day throughout the USA..... but evidently NOT in Singapore.

Lam-My said...

Never said *sophisticated is rarely used or it's archaic; don't lump everything together. I pointed it out because CNN-Fan used it soon after I did, same day; not that it's rarely used or archaic.

carnage ... copied directly from , states archaic.

the slaughter of a great number of people, as in battle; butchery; massacre.
Archaic. dead bodies, as of those slain in battle.

Oxford Dictionary
'Archaic words. These words are no longer in everyday use or have lost a particular meaning in current usage but are sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavour or in standard conversation or writing for a humorous effect.

Perhaps herculean is not archaic but definitely not commonly used. I've been writing on Internet 10 years and followed CNN 20 years, never heard it used so rarely used is correctly pointed out.

Like I said before...terrible waste of my brain energy...3 steps behind.

Nanbert said...

Lam-My....If it pleases you to claim a "CNN Fan" is hanging on your every word... and quotes your words regularly...and you are determined to defend your claim...go for it!

However, we could ALL claim the same, In fact, CNN "quotes" hundreds of the words we ALL write here every day. We just don't "lay claim" to them...or boast about them.

Lam-My said...

If you can't substantiate like I do with specific dates and times, then your claims are baseless! There is absolutely no truth in your claim that hundreds of words have been quoted from here. I am talking of uncommon words that are not often used...hundreds of those? used here? Please give examples and substantiate!
I did not say CNN is hanging onto every word/quote of mine; in fact quite seldom, like once in a while and I just want to connect with her for some fun; I like making connections, even talk to Aliens and especially Pharaoh, sometimes Praying-mantis!
Once I happened to look up CNN and lo and behold, I saw my name listed under CNN audience participation, only me haw haw! You shouldn't twist and turn
facts / truths to suit your argument which must be based on facts! You know!
My intention is not to boast; I do not need to do that! Got it? Just surprised and want to share some fun with my CNN Fan.
Terrible waste of my brain energy! Cesspool.

Nanbert said...

And what about your "Presidential Writer Fan"...who you claimed wrote YOUR word "carnage"
into Trump's Inaugural address? Not to mention the many other words you've claimed as copied from you by members of the press through the years!

And yes, CNN shares hundreds of words with those written here by various writers every day...ALL the time...nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. CNN's NOT "copying" from us...OR YOU! It's OUR collective one OWNS a word!

I believe you are a fairly intelligent woman, can't you see how this "quirk" of yours is perceived? CNN, MSNBC, Presidential Writer, Aliens, Pharoah, Praying-Mantis (ALL the "connections" you list above) are FICTION...not fact. Why claim can't really tell the difference

Last, you've described me with the word "cesspool" more than once before. Does that really make you feel better? Name-calling is SO juvenile. Good luck on your "brain energy" problem.

Nanbert said...

BTW, deliberately misrepresented 'CARNAGE" as archaic above. First, you added
"states archaic" (YOUR words) after was absolutely INCORRECT! Second, you deliberately failed to include the numbers before the two lines of definitions given below that. When one copies definitions from a dictionary, they MUST be exact. You cheated!

The first line of definition is the current, and correct, one. The second line indicates the archaic (older) definition that was its earlier usage. Adding "states archaic" before, and not including the numbers on the definitions is "cheating"!

Next, you cited the Oxford Dictionary definition of "archaic"which was never in question, and not needed....obviously to try to make it seem to support your point...but in fact was just a "smoke screen".

Tsk, tsk!

Lam-My said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lam-My said...

Cesspool brain is stuck in the drain
Help Help! Cries in vain
Oh no...down comes the rain
Pitter patter...pitter patter
Up and down, her neck cranes
To alleviate the strain on her cesspool brain
Along comes Pharaohdoggo
Jumps in to rescue the desperado
Yea, just like his brave Daddy
Who saved him from the rescue shelter
Drags desperado with his strong canines
Out of the stagnated murky gutter
However cesspool brain simply walks away
Without even giving a pat to brave Pharaoh
What better friend than one who risks his life to save another
Yutu rabbit stands by watching...hop step jump...wheeeoot!

ε€ͺ勇敒了 ! ty yoong garn ler

(ε€ͺ ty / extremely .. 勇敒 yoong garn / courageous ..δΊ† ler / exclamation)

ζ₯ζˆ‘ηš„ζœˆηƒηŽ© lai wor der yueh chiu wharn...ε₯½ε—?hao ma / okay?

(ζ₯ lai / come .. ζˆ‘ηš„ wor der / my .. ζœˆηƒ yueh chiu / moon .. 玩 wharn / play)



Nanbert said...

Humm....Cesspool brain...again....haha. Is that the best you got? You must have had a very traumatic experience with a cesspool at some time to be so fixated about it. That's at least the fourth, possibly fifth time you've called me that. So Juvenile!

Patria said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nanbert said...


Lam-My said...

By the way, I never said 'copy my words' and never said the 'words belong to me'...not even once!
Now you know why the 'cesspool brain' fits you to a T; if the cap fits, wear it!
Cesspool essentially is a stagnation of a pool of rot and murk which can't move forward because it is clogged up.
Cheat? No, not my cup of necessity to do that! Wake up!

Nanbert said...



1. Deliberately misquoting a dictionary to make it appear to support your point is..._____?

2. Name-Calling and other personal attacks during a discussion/debate is...______?

Fill in the blanks.

Hint: You already know the answer to No.2...I've explained it to you before. The answer is at the top.....remember?

Lam-My said...

Well, well, as always you are the Culprit on starting attacks; you accused me of "boasting" right from the start and no! I never misquote anything or anybody, I always check thoroughly.
Regarding called me "cheat" and using "smoke-screen" that's more than name-calling, that's scandalous and I've held back actually calling you, lashing out with no substantiation...a thorough-bred Liar!
I've avoided you for quite some time, but fell into your Trap this time; you simply love to pick a fight because nobody pays much attention to your insipid boring rigmaroles.
Terrible waste of my brain energy!

Culprit green-eyed jealous
Can't see the beam in your own eye
Yet quick to point out the splinter in others
A thorough-bred liar!
Lashes out with no substance whatsoever
Wake up! Time is running out!

Nanbert said...

Photocopied from

carnage (kahr-nij)

1. The slaughter of a great number of people, as in battle; butchery; massacre.
2. Archaic. dead bodies, as of those slain in battle.

There's the be compared with YOUR altered entry about 13 comments down from the top. didn't take your test above. The answer to the first question is... CHEATING.

I find it terribly amusing that you've "held back" calling me a "thorough-bred liar" when "cesspool brain" comes so easily to you.. What admirable self-control!

No matter..."What's in a name....?" Both "names" are Argumentum Ad Hominem...i.e. the fall-back point of name-calling and personal attacks often employed by someone losing a discussion or debate.

Lam-My said...

Your last sentence, cliche, that you deploy so many times, is describing yourself which I've already pointed out with real examples.
Please substantiate what has been altered regarding my dictionary quote which I copied very carefully! Explain! Like I already emphasised, you simply lash out with no backup're a thorough-bred deceiver...fibber!
By the way, if words are accurate in describing a person, it is no longer name-calling, it's called truth which you have zero inkling or respect.

Nanbert said...

I already EXPLAINED the alterations that you had made in my comment 17th from the top...just before your opus "Cesspoll Brain"... and provided the visual proof for comparison just a couple of comments ago, i.e. the backup evidence you just said I didn't supply.

Are you having reading problems?...comprehensive problems? Maybe you're wasting too much brain have been complaining about that a lot. I hope our discussion didn't tax you too much. Get some rest.

Goodnight Lam-My.

Lam-My said...

Well as far as I'm concerned I copied the dictionary, on archaic, word for word and so your explanation regarding my alteration is at best vague or you are referring to another dictionary which may have given more which I do not need as I do not believe in lengthy rigmarole with intention to confuse and deceive, like you do. I will be extra vigilant not to fall into your traps and deceptions again and waste my brain energy which by the way, I have an abundance of to write poems and stories every day, unlike your helluva boring, baseless rigmaroles.

Nanbert said...

Good morning, Lam-MY,

I see you've been busy, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, constructing another smokescreen,...tsk, tsk. O.K., if you we go.

Copying the Oxford Dictionary on "archaic" was absolutely unnecessary...and you know it! You tried to use that as a smoke-screen then, and you are attempting to do the same again. Whether you copied that exactly is of absolutely NO import whatsoever.

The definition of "archaic" was NOT in question, the definition of "carnage" is where we differed...whether "carnage" was archaic or not. You insisted that it was, and deliberately ADDED YOUR OWN definition "STATES ARCHAIC" AFTER identifying the source as Those words DID NOT EXIST there in you very well know! You cannot deny it, because it is all there in black and white.

Additionally, you further attempted to obfuscate the definition by removing the numbers 1 and 2 in front of the two lines of definitions....which made them seem to be all part of one definition...instead of TWO separate ones....the current usage and its archaic (earlier) usage. Again, alterations to attempt to prove your point! Bad form! You cannot deny it, because it is there in black and white. copied the definition of "archaic" from the Oxford Dictionary as if to support your doctored "presentation"....which was completely unnecessary and irrelevant, and ONLY a smoke-screen. Its definition was never in question. Whether you copied IT "exactly" or not is unimportant. It was not even worth checking out.

Now, that brings us to two truths:

1. You deliberately altered the definition of "carnage" to prove your point.

2. You deliberately brought up the definition of "archaic" as a smoke screen to attempt
to prove your point, even though it was completely irrelevant.

It's all black and white. All your name-calling, insults, and protestations change nothing!

Civility is a virtue...not a weakness. You should try it sometime.

Now, I suggest we drop the subject, and part ways. Any furthur discussion of this subject would just be "flogging a dead horse".

Have a good day!

Lam-My said...

I did not put quotations on "states archaic" which are my own words, so that's the alteration you are insisting? Looks like reading and comprehension are more your problem! not mine.
I don't believe in "smoke-screens", always state clearly and honestly. On the other hand, you camouflage with confused arguments.

It was necessary to quote the dictionary as a Rebuttal to your claim, you said:
"Herculean", "carnage", "sophisticated" (and others claimed earlier) are quite COMMON words in American English...not at all "rarely used" or "archaic".
To prove you are as usual 3 steps behind and what is worse lump everything together; never said *sophisticated is archaic. See you misquoted me and yet accuse me of misquoting.

As for leaving out the numbers 1,2...I went to check why I did not swipe it, lo and behold, they are in lighter print which to me was optional so didn't swipe it; it's clear enough the two sentences one below the other. This is an informal talk, why are you splitting hairs?

You have been trying to beat or up me from years back and never succeeded even once, not now or Beat it! Love that MJ Hit song! especially his dancing.

Nanbert said...

OMG!..... I put quotations on "states archaic" BECAUSE I was quoting YOU....YOUR WORDS!....which finally you ADMIT WERE YOUR OWN! That's what I've been saying ALL the time! They were YOUR words!....NOT's!

Thanks now for FINALLY admitting that you added your own words.."states archaic".. before the definition....and omitted the numbers required with the definitions. Dictionary quotes must not be edited ...not even by you.

You say.... "This is an informal talk, why am I splitting hairs?" If this is as informal as you say, do you always talk in such insulting, name-calling and vituperative language in all your "informal talks"? Do you feel that truth and accuracy is not necessary if it's "informal"?

Never mind answering...I really don't care. There is nothing more to discuss.

Lam-My said...

You mean you can't discern this sentence given below is my own words and not part of the quote; what is there to admit? Goodness gracious! I even stated copied from dictionary; if it was part of the quote would I need to say 'copied from dictionary'...informal note form.

'carnage ... copied directly from , states archaic.'

You started the Attacks! by insolently saying I "boast"! "cheat"! "use smoke-screen"! That's rude, crass, callous...Not acceptable!! Wake up!

Nanbert said...

Lam-My.......Because "states archaic" was NOT "copied directly from" you wrote...but was ADDED by you. Formal or "informal note form" (as you now say), it's STILL INCORRECT AND IMPROPER! You're just embarassed and upset because I called you out on it.

I suggest you read up on the rules of proper Dictionary useage before you attempt any further quotes from them.

A discussion between ADULTS must depend on accuracy, honesty and civility or the entire thing crumbles into NONSENSE. We arrived THERE a long time ago!

The original point of our discussion has been completely lost in this quibbling over semantics! Or...maybe that's your clever way of changing an untenable and uncomfortable subject?

That's it....I've had my say. Feel free to continue on as long as it makes you happy.....I'm CERTAIN you will!

Lam-My said...

No! I did not Add anything to the dictionary meaning; I stated my own words above it as an intro. Adding something would mean the words become part of the context/meaning which would alter it. Why would anyone add words to a dictionary? Come on! Wakie Wakie! Quite the cesspool, pretty clogged at that.

As I've said, I quoted exactly the portion that was required and hardly thought you couldn't discern the words I used and actual quote from the dictionary.

Like I often quote: 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet' Shakespeare...which is only part of a much longer quote.

'To be, or not to be, that is the question:' first line of a long soliloquy - Hamlet / Shakespeare.

'You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.' St Matthew / Bible

Nanbert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nanbert said...

Lam-MY......Your second and third sentences in your last comment have always been exactly MY position:

Your sentence 2. "Adding something would mean the words became part of the context/meaning which would alter it."

Your sentence 3. "Why would anyone add words to a dictionary?"

Trying to pass off your addition NOW "as an intro" is just another attempt to wiggle out, doesn't hold water, and is STILL CHEATING!.....since anything written AFTER "copied directly from" must ONLY be followed by that Dictionary's exact words...not you very well know.

Calling me "cesspool", (as usual) and "hypocrite" is Ad Hominem (personal attacks instead of intelligent discussion) and only makes you seem petulant, childish and evasive. (Sticks and Stones, Lam-MY!)

I suggest you drop this subject.....since you are only digging yourself in deeper with each comment. The only thing worse than being caught cheating, is continuing to deny it and continuing to try to make it sound reasonable and/or excusable when that's foolish and impossible.

It's always still black and white.... for everyone to see! Accept it, and move on....there's a lot more dignity in that. But, of course, you won't!

Lam-My said...

Be careful ! with your accusation on someone cheating based on your own ill-informed presumption; so that's okay? not juvenile; a fruitful discussion does not have to include slander on a person. You! started your so-called adult discussion by saying I boast! cheat! and deploy smokescreen! So that's not childish? It's slander! Not acceptable unless proven without a shadow of doubt. You are a liar! without the blink of an eye, with no proper substantiation, only your own ill-informed presumptions. Wake up! Before it's too late! Like a car without brakes!

Nanbert said...

Proven without a shadow of a black and white... in your own words ..irrefutable!

Lam-My said...

Your accusations must be proven by you! not based on my words! That's a sign of a lazy brain; always banking on others to give you the answers; cesspool, lack of oxygen.

Nanbert said...

Complete lunacy! You need help, Lam-My. You are NOT connected to the real world.



Lam-My said...

Your problem is you like putting me down, an obsession for several years now; which likely stems from jealousy and intimidation. You keep changing the context of the argument and pile on more and more accusations; but it's no use if you can't prove your claims irrevocably; so vague and befuddled like you said, 'my own words' prove your accusation? You sure need more oxygen, get out of that cluttered pool.

Nanbert said...

Apology accepted, Lam-My.

Your problem is that you approach every discussion as a fight to the death, and become very abusive and offensive in your language...which defeats the purpose of a civil adult conversation. When that is not effective, you pretend to misunderstand the points I explain, and keep heading off in different directions to detour the conversation, and change the subject. Oh yes, I recognize all those tricks! Your comments above present a textbook example of how to avoid admitting you are wrong!

What had surprised even me, though, was when you deliberately misquoted a dictionary by adding your own words to its definition in order to make it seem that it agreed with your point...and the only word for that is CHEATING. Then you spent the rest of the time trying to misdirect the conversation rather than meeting it head on and admitting your "mistake", which is clearly available for all to see during this interminally long and ludicrous "discussion".

Evidently, your motto is "The end justifies the means".I was sorry to see that. The truth is, I held you in higher regard than you evidently do me. Even when you "slipped", as you well know, you chose the "low ground" and wriggled around on the hook, going in one direction and the other, attacking, abusing, misdirecting, feigning lack of comprehension, and trying to evade admitting the simple fact that you cheated. You may be surprised to know that I expected more honesty...and yes, honor... from you than you exhibited.

Everyone makes "mistakes".... which I WAS prepared to accord you....until you kept compounding it and compounding it ad infinitum...until it reached on beyond nonsense and became insanity! It is evident that "winning" at ALL costs...any costs... was your goal.

So, I LEAVE the "playing field" to you, Lam-My Feel free to continue your protestations of innocence and smoke-screens, and call me "cesspool" and whatever other insult you can lay your tongue to...for as long as it pleases I KNOW you will....because GETTING IN THE LAST WORD is just as precious to you as WINNING AT ALL COSTS.

Lam-My said...

See I was right calling you a blatant faceless Liar! What apology? I do not apologise to a confused mind, so now you even have to fantasize an apology?

I did not make any mistake! I always check my quotes with utmost care. And you still can't prove your accusation with any substantiation whatsoever!

Why do you need to feel so intimidated that you keep stalking me. I've said many times, I've no interest in your mundane rigmarole that your cesspool brain spews out incoherently.

No, I do not need to win at all cost; what's there to win. You started the whole attack on me just because CNN Fan uses words that I've used, a few years now, and I enjoy communicating with her; once I saw my name listed under CNN audience participation.
I notice you can't stand people being happy, so you go all out to eliminate it using unproven lies and unsubstantiated accusations. Time is running out. Be happy when you still can.